Emergency Planning and Fuel Pools: The Little Fire That Wasn't There

stairs at a lighthouse

The man on the stair

Yesterday, upon the stair, 

I met a man who wasn't there.

He wasn't there again today.

I wish, I wish he'd go away.

The fire that wasn't there

In the early days after the tsunami, quite a few people looked at the explosion above Fukushima Daiichi Fuel Pool 4 and decided that the fuel pool must be burning.  Later, it became clear that the explosion was due to hydrogen generated in Unit 3, and that the fuel pool was fine. Well, mostly fine--it had debris from the roof that fell in on it.  At any rate, the fuel pool was not burning and it will not burn in the future. Currently fuel bundles are being removed from that pool.

However, the more strident nuclear opponents keep up the rhetoric that the Fuel Pool 4 has burned, is still burning, or is about to burn any moment. The opponents are noisy, but they are wrong.  Fuel Pool 4 is the little fire that isn't there.

Meanwhile, back in Vermont: Emergency Planning

Vermont Yankee will close later this year. When it shuts down, it will transfer fuel from the reactor to the fuel pool.  Then, after a period of about five to seven years, Vermont Yankee will transfer all the  fuel from the fuel pool into dry cask storage. In other words, for several years, the fuel pool will be in full operation.

Entergy has calculated that the danger of a fuel pool fire will be somewhere between highly-improbable and completely-impossible after the fuel has cooled in the pool for about a year. Therefore, Entergy has requested permission from the NRC  to stop funding the Emergency Planning Zone, starting fifteen months after reactor shutdown and fuel off-loading.

As you can imagine, the powers-that-be in Vermont are totally against the NRC allowing Entergy to stop funding the Emergency Planning Zone.  I think they believe in the scaremonger-version of the Unit 4 pool at Fukushima.  Governor Shumlin's appointee, Chris Recchia, is chair of the Vermont Department of Public Service. In Washington, Recchia testified about emergency planning. He said that “Vermont was not well served by NRC’s past decisions and current approach to decommissioning. We essentially negotiated with one hand tied behind our back."

Meanwhile, in Washington: Committee Meetings and Bills

Senator Sanders

Chris Recchia was in Washington to testify about before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.  Senator Barbara Boxer of that committee did her best to get a witness from the NRC to say that the spent fuels at San Onofre were dangerous and the fuel should be moved to dry casks as soon as possible (maybe sooner).   But Washington has gone beyond mere committee meetings.

Senator Sanders, Boxer and Markey have introduced legislation to have nuclear plants consult with states within fifty miles of the plant before the plants can submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC.

Back to Vermont: Money

Vermont has often expressed its eagerness to have the plant fully decommissioned as soon as possible.  Our politicians get visibly upset at the idea of letting decommissioning funds grow over time.  However, it also seems to be anathema to them that the NRC will decide on the danger level of the fuel pool. The politicians want a major state seat at the table, deciding on danger levels according to their personal criteria.

Vice President Mike Twomey of Entergy tried to bring some reason to this process. He noted that keeping up the Emergency Planning Zone activities would cost about $20 million a year.  This money will come out the decommissioning fund. Taking this money from the fund in the early days would slow the growth of the fund, and therefore slow the beginning of full decommissioning.  In other words, the politicians cannot have their cake (continued funding for the emergency zone) and eat it too (quick decommissioning). As Twomey said, this funding is "not a free option."

Back to Vermont: Safety 

Volunteer firefighters in Georgia

This is all about politics, by the way, not safety.  If you ask first-responders from the Brattleboro area if the fuel pool is the most important of their concerns, they would say "no."  The trains running through southern Vermont carry all sorts of cargoes, including acid, poisonous industrial chemicals, flammable materials, etc.

Possible train wrecks are a major concern to local first responders.

I believe that first responders can always use more funding.  However, funding the Emergency Planning Zone isn't what they need, or what the people of Vermont need for safety.  It may be what some of our elected officials need for re-election, however.

 The Little Fire That Wasn't There

Vermont has to stop posturing about fuel pools, and look at the real problems the state is going to have. The state is especially going to have problems without Vermont Yankee funds (Clean Energy Development Fund, Lake Champlain clean-up, Emergency Planning Zone funding for first-responder equipment in southern Vermont) to bail them out.

The state has to let go of worrying about the man-who-isn't-there, and look at the problems that actually exist.

---------

UPDATE:  Description of the three bills being introduced by Boxer, Sanders and Markey. First bill requires EPZ planning to continue until fuel is moved to dry cask, second requires all fuel in dry casks within seven years of shutdown, and third gives local and state reps a "meaningful seat at the table" about decomm planning.  

http://www.gsnmagazine.com/node/41220?c=infrastructure_protection

Notes on the post itself:

Poem: Antigonish, 1899

Fuel Pool:

Oak Ridge Researchers Show Fukushima Unit 4 Fuel Pool Never a Danger: Rod Adams at Atomic Insights

History of the Unit Four Fuel Pool: Les Corrice at Hiroshima Syndrome

NRC Releases Spent Fuel Pool Study: Allison Dunne at WAMC

Fuel pools, with video of pool 4: At Yes Vermont Yankee

Howard Shaffer on used fuel: testimony at Vermont legislature: At Yes Vermont Yankee

Vermont Wants Emergency Planning to Continue

Senators review nuclear decommissioning: Pat Bradley at WAMC (This includes the Recchia quote about "one hand tied behind our back.")

Panel Questions Experts on Closed Reactor Risks: Matt Wald at New York Times (this includes the $20 million a year quote from Twomey)

State wants Entergy to continue emergency planning after shutdown: Tom Brown at Vermont Digger.

Three Views of the April 14 Opponent Rally

On Saturday April 14, opponents of Vermont Yankee held a rally on Brattleboro Green.  Here are three views of the rally: Before, during and after.


First: Before the Rally
Opponent leaders were quite optimistic about attendance at the rally.  State Bigwigs were expected.  Governor Shumlin, Attorney General Sorrell, and Senator Sanders were all scheduled to speak at the rally. As a Rutland Herald article stated: "'We are expecting well over 1,000 people,' said DeWalt, while other activists sent out emails Thursday urging people to 'pack the Commons' with upwards of 5,000 people."  (Article by Susan Smallheer of the Rutland Herald, published on April 13 and unfortunately behind a paywall),

Rally organizers said that the Saturday date, the peaceful plans (no arrests), the important speakers, the better weather (than the March 22 rally) and the band--all would lead to a very full and successful rally.

Second: The Rally Itself
About a thousand people came, and this short video by WCAX gives a good view of the rally, including parts of Shumlin, Sanders and Sorrell's speeches.

In one memorable moment, Sanders said that the people who work at Yankee will still have jobs, tearing it down.  (The comments on this video clip run heavily against the statements that these politicians made.)  If you want to hear all the speeches, you can follow the audio links at this Vermont Digger article.

First Hand Report: A friend of mine went to the rally, and she wrote me an email. She said I could excerpt the email for my blog, but she did not want her name used. Here's an excerpt.

Lovely sunny day and the crowd grew to perhaps 1000 by 1PM. At one point, a State Representative from Massachusetts spoke and asked for a show of hands from those who were from Massachusetts. I would say a good third of the crowd raised their hands... The sound system was of very good quality....which makes or breaks these events... (I think) the best way to describe the event, its feel and texture, is ..(to describe some bumper stickers and signs I saw) Bumper stickers: Childhood is a journey not a race. Animal rights are not special rights. Invest in weapons of mass instruction. We the people not we the corporations. All soil is sacred...another sign. This one sign, held high and very visible at the rally, says it all, or very nearly:
Shut down VT Yankee 
Shut down all nukes 
Shut down capitalism.


Third: After the Rally
The politicians made speeches, and they said things that may have been impolitic.

In the Commons, a not-for-profit newspaper in Brattleboro, an editorial encouraged Bernie Sanders to fact-check before he spoke.

Meanwhile, as Governor Shumlin is encouraging Green Mountain Power (owned by a Canadian company) to buy Central Vermont Public Service.  The legislature does not like the terms of the proposed deal, but Shumlin says the legislature should not interfere.

Since Shumlin led the charge on the legislature interfering with Vermont Yankee, Shumlin's recent statements on the subject have led to a bit of snickering, as in this Seven Days article: Populist Governor Peter Shumlin Changes His Mind on Out-of-State Energy.

My Comment: Adoring Crowds

The local politicians, all running for re-election this year, took this opportunity to speak with an adoring crowd. Later press pointed out that their statements were inaccurate and inconsistent.  It was a smaller adoring-crowd than they had hoped for, but perhaps the fervent anti-capitalist tone made up for the few numbers.

Judging by the later press, politicians should note that adoring crowds are dangerous.  You may be tempted to say things you will later regret.    It can happen.

Sanders is Sole Vote Against Small Modular Reactor Research

Bernie Sanders and Small Modular Reactors

Senator Bernie Sanders often speaks about his opposition to Vermont Yankee as having something to do with the age of the plant, the fact it is owned by Entergy, or his "state's rights" stance about regulating nuclear power plants.

Recently, however, Sanders made it clear that he is against nuclear power in any form and is proud of that opinion. On Senator Sanders website, he featured the fact that he was the only vote against "a pair of measures that would promote the development of small modular reactors."

One of these measures was the Nuclear Power Act S512. This act would authorize the Secretary of Energy to start a cost-shared program for development of small modular reactors (SMRs).

This act had strong bi-partisan support, being sponsored by 3 Republican and 4 Democratic Senators. The act requires research and development funds for SMRs. The Act is still in process, and does not have a firm dollar amount attached, but the dollar amount is likely to be small (in government terms, at least.). Current estimates are $100 million per fiscal year for four years, starting next year.

The act also requires that industry cost-share the expense. If industry doesn't think it is worth spending money on the research, the research will not receive government funding either.

As a background to the probable cost of this Act, we should note that President Obama requested $4.8 billion dollars for Department of Energy research, of which $3.2 billion is allocated for renewable energy and energy efficiency research. (This number has changed with the debt deal, but new numbers are not available at this time.)

Small Modular Reactors for The Future

Sander's opposition to this Nuclear Power Act will hurt America's chances to develop an important new exportable technology. Outside of Europe, the nuclear renaissance remains in full swing, with reactors being ordered and built in Arabia, China, India and Southeast Asia. Developing a strong set of SMR designs would be America's best chance to re-entering the world market for nuclear power.

SMRs are modular (assembled in a factory and delivered to the site), small (50 to 225 MW) and have many safety features, such as passive cooling. SMRs are expected to have a huge international market. They suitable for many places that do not have the population density or money for the current crop of huge reactors (1200 MW, built on site at great expense). SMRs would make nuclear power affordable and salable many places.

Westinghouse and Babcock & Wilcox have invested significant amounts of their own money in developing these products. The NRC is also active in assessing preliminary designs. At another Senate committee meeting on SMRs, Commissioner Magwood of the NRC said that he does not expect decisions made by the NRC to be the critical factor in the success or failure of SMRs. Magwood noted that SMRs have passive safety features and large water inventories; these would be considered during license review.

America Fallen Behind

America has fallen far behind the rest of the world in most nuclear technologies. Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs) and Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) were developed in this country. They are being sold all over the world, but not by United States companies. We're out of the running. Other countries licensed and improved our original technologies. Companies from France, Korea, Russia and China compete to build large reactors in China, Arabia, and Southeast Asia.

Three American companies have put millions of dollars into the development of SMRs: Westinghouse, Babcock & Wilcox, and NuScale (a small start-up). Many people in the nuclear industry feel that the race to develop the first successful SMR is a truly high-stakes race, being fought at the level of nationwide efforts. Luckily, SMR development has bi-partisan support, and Mr. Sanders was alone in his opposition to supporting American industry efforts to develop these plants.

Should Government Be Involved?

Of course, one can make a case that the government should get out of the energy research business altogether. If Senator Sanders wished to save tax dollars by cutting all energy-research programs, he might have a valid case. However, if the government does plan to spend money on energy research, cost-sharing with industry on a new nuclear technology is certainly a far better use of funds than many of the projects in the swollen DOE renewable budget.

Note: I am pleased to be an occasional guest blogger at True North Reports. This post first appeared in True North Reports on July 27, 2011. It has been updated, especially with some newly-available cost information.

Graphic of B & W mpower reactor from NRC website: TVA may be interested in building small modular reactors.